Commentary: No government should have control of the “Internets”

Texas on the Potomac regularly shares with you the work of some of Hearst Newspapers’ best columnists. Today, we are pleased to share with you this commentary by San Antonio Express-News columnist Jonathan Gurwitz.

HEARST COMMENTARY

Whom do you trust less to manage the Internet: the elected members of the U.S. Congress or the unaccountable bureaucrats of a United Nations agency?

One year ago, key players in the digital world were ramping up their efforts against a bipartisan proposal on Capitol Hill to expand the ability of American law enforcement agencies to fight piracy of U.S. goods and intellectual property on foreign websites. By January, the opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act had reached a fever pitch.

Wikipedia blacked out its site for 24 hours, greeting visitors with the message, “Imagine a world without free knowledge.” Thousands of other websites joined the strike or, like Internet titan Google, protested SOPA on its homepage and encouraged visitors to sign a petition against the pending legislation.

The Obama administration issued an official response to an anti-SOPA petition on the White House website, just like the recent secession petitions. “While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response,” the statement read, “we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Much of the criticism directed against SOPA was overblown. At heart, the controversy was largely a replay of the conflict between producers whose intellectual property and goods are pirated on the Internet — movie makers, music companies, drug makers — and digital service providers.

In the end, SOPA died in committee. The relative merits of the arguments for and against the legislation are less important than the precedent established by the episode — that even well-meaning efforts to regulate the Internet should be looked at skeptically, and that no changes should be made that could affect the free flow of information or increase the power of government to monitor or limit traffic without the broadest possible consensus.

This week as the International Telecommunications Union convenes for a summit in Dubai, some representatives of the 193 countries in attendance will be trying to do just that. Russia is demanding the transfer of Internet governance authority from non-governmental, international nonprofits such as the Internet Society and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to the ITU, a UN agency.

What might the Internet look like under ITU control? Digital consultant Larry Downes writes at CNET.com, “Proposals leaked earlier from Russia, China, Iran, and others would authorize member nations, with UN blessing, to inspect and censor incoming and outgoing Internet traffic on the premise of monitoring criminal behavior, filtering spam, or protecting national security.” A proposal from a group of 17 Arab countries would require the attachment of “identity information” with Internet transmissions. Another from the European Telecom and Network Operators Association would treat Internet traffic like international phone calls, charging a fee to websites like Google or Facebook for foreign visitors.

(AP Photo)

Some analysts are downplaying the threat to Internet freedom and innovation posed by the ITU, arguing that individual governments — including the United States — are already increasing online surveillance and regulation. Yet there’s broad agreement that a UN regime to police the Internet would stifle the most important advancement in communication and commerce in the modern era and would, at the very least, create a Balkanized digital world.

Responding to concerns about the ITU raised by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., at oversight hearings in May, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski — an Obama appointee — said, “The proposals that are out there to create a new layer of international governance for the Internet are just a bad idea. They’re bad for the global economy. They’re bad for freedom and democracy around the world.”

Perhaps the alarm about ITU attempts to control the Internet are just as overblown as the alarm about SOPA. But anyone who was even mildly concerned about Internet freedom because democratically elected representatives who are accountable to voters were deliberating about digital regulations ought to be scared stiff at the prospect of commissars from Russia and zealots from Iran doing the same thing.